Hypocrisy in Kavanaugh case enough to set off alarms in DC

Washington is bracing for a showdown over the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court, following the belated disclosure of a letter alleging an attempted rape when he was a high school student. Republicans are crying “smear,” while Democrats are crying “coverup.” Neither side is particularly convincing in their outrage, given their positions on earlier scandals. The challenge is to address the serious issues raised by the allegation through the screen of feigned mutual outrage. That leaves only one real option: public hearings.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford came forward as Kavanaugh’s accuser. She alleges that he attacked her when they were teenagers (he was 17, she was 15) in high school. Ford alleges that Kavanaugh was drunk at a small party in Maryland and forced her into a bedroom. She says he tried to tear off her clothes while holding his hand over her mouth; she further alleges that Kavanaugh’s friend, Mark Judge, witnessed the act, which stopped only when Judge jumped on the two of them. Both Kavanaugh and Judge vehemently deny the allegation.

ADVERTISEMENT

What Ford describes is an attempted rape, which should be a serious matter for investigation regardless of when it occurred. Ford has offered little corroboration beyond her discussion of the incident in 2012 during marriage counseling (an account recorded by the therapist without reference to Kavanaugh by name). She has taken a polygraph, which her lawyer claims showed she spoke truthfully about the account.

While financial scandals have plagued past Court nominees from the earliest days of the Republic, this is the first time that a nominee has been accused of attempted rape. Clarence Thomas was accused of sexual misconduct but not actual sexual assault; ultimately, that matter was left unresolved by the differing accounts, and Thomas was confirmed by a 52-48 vote.

Before any hearing, of course, more political posturing and prevarication must occur. It is a good thing there is not a Doppler radar for hypocrisy, or Washington would be in the midst of a mandatory evacuation.

When he worked for independent counsel Ken Starr, Kavanaugh wrote a memo entitled “Slack for the President?” The answer was decidedly no, according to Kavanaugh, who wanted Clinton questioned about specific graphic acts that he committed during his affair with Monica Lewinsky. He insisted “our job” is not “to impose sanctions on him, but it is our job to make his pattern of revolting behavior clear — piece by painful piece.” He insisted: “The idea of going easy on him at the questioning is thus abhorrent to me.”

Kavanaugh now faces calls for public hearings to go into precisely this type of detail. While Republicans may try to force closed hearings for both Ford and Kavanaugh, it would run against the precedent set in the Clarence Thomas hearings, where both parties testified publicly before the Senate committee.

Kavanaugh’s high school friend, Judge, also is likely to face tough questioning, if he is called. He wrote a 2005 book, "God and Man at Georgetown Prep," that describes a reckless, booze-soaked environment at the prestigious prep school. In his 1997 addiction memoir, "Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk," Judge paints a less-than-flattering portrait of his struggle with alcohol. In these accounts, Judge describes being “completely annihilated” after parties and even waking up with no memory after blacking out. That does not make for a particularly compelling fact witness, and his personal account mirrors the conduct described by Ford.

So where does this leave us? With a tough decision that will come down to a judgment of character.

Both Ford and Kavanaugh should be closely questioned on their accounts and any conflicts that arise in that testimony. No one has a “right” to be believed. They have a right to be heard and fairly considered. Both of them.

So here is an idea: Let’s stop the manipulation and hold a public (rather than a closed) hearing; closed hearings allow testimony to be filtered through these same conflicted politicians. Ford and Kavanaugh have the right to respond to public attacks with public testimony. Otherwise, both will be savaged by leaks and spins in biased third-hand accounts. Given the absence of witnesses, it is unlikely that either account will be proven or disproven. That leaves this as a matter of credibility, a judgment that can only be made by the public if they see the actual testimony of these two individuals.

In the end, 11 Democrats felt that the allegations against Thomas were not sufficiently corroborated to justify a denial by the Senate. It took courage for those Democrats to take that stand. The same may be true with Kavanaugh – or it may not. The only thing that is clear is that we are unlikely to reach any clarity or consensus without a full public hearing.